The most Evil IPSC traget array to date

I posted the cited article (and pictures, and video) on my Cogito Ergo Geek blog, and I'm surprised at the comments suggesting that the Texas Star, or clones, or variants, are not legal in IPSC competition. This is the first I have heard that, and I would be interested if someone could cite the applicable rule.

In the meantime, please remember that this array was built in Oregon for a USPSA match. When researching the question, I was looking in the USPSA rulebook (January, 2004) which still closely parallels the IPSC rules.

The Evil Oregon Star target is, as of this writing, approximately five days old. It will be presented in its first USPSA match tomorrow as a regular stage. I'll be writing about the experience within a couple of days, and I'll include video footage of people actually shooting AT it. That should be good for a laugh, at least when I'm the shooter. I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I don't have high expectations of impressing anyone.

I'm glad you folks enjoyed the video. Since I posted it, almost 600 visits to that article have been recorded. That's the most popular video since Travis Tomassie's "Perfect Reload" video.

I'll be sure to let you know when the match videos are available.
 
jerrydgeek said:
I posted the cited article (and pictures, and video) on my Cogito Ergo Geek blog, and I'm surprised at the comments suggesting that the Texas Star, or clones, or variants, are not legal in IPSC competition. This is the first I have heard that, and I would be interested if someone could cite the applicable rule.
Click to expand...
No suggestion. Fact. Try and submit a match with it to IPSC (NOT USPSA) for approval. You'll find out pretty quick.

USPSA picks and chooses which IPSC rules they want to use; so in the US, you're probably GTG.
 
In the past I have shoot the Texas in level2 in Canada......they were and are still legal in level 2 if they get approval from the section....but won't be accepted in any level 3.....by what I read here they are about to disappear all together from IPSC matches....
 
Dansy said:
In the past I have shoot the Texas in level2 in Canada......they were and are still legal in level 2 if they get approval from the section....
Click to expand...
No. The section should not approve it. But you have showed me that there's a lack of communication that I need to get fixed.
 
Freedom Ventures said:
No. The section should not approve it. But you have showed me that there's a lack of communication that I need to get fixed.
Click to expand...

That wasn't within the section I'm residing.....and it was fun to shoot that star it is a pretty good challenge, and seem equal to me....shoot the wrong sequence or have miss and she goes to-s%^t on you......sound pretty equal :shotgun: :D
 
Last edited:
There was a big discussion about this on the IPSC World forum. Vince Pinto had said that any L3 with a Texas Star would not be sanctioned. When pressed for the rule that excludes a Texas Star, he quickly changes the subject and goes on about carnival props.

We have static targets and moving targets. We have static plates, but apparently moving plates are carnival props. :rolleyes:

They're fun to shoot.
 
It's not open to debate in this forum.

Let your opinion be known to your section coordinator.
If the NEC is against banning the Texas Star, IPSC Canada will try to debate it at the GA.

Knowing the GA, I assess the odds of success at 15%.

As I said, I don't agree with the ruling, but I do follow the rules.
 
Last edited:
How very interesting.

24 hours ago I asked for a citation of the rule which forbade usage of the Texas Star (or its "variants or clones") from inclusion in IPSC matches, and the only response I see is that "Vince Pinto Said ...".

Vinny is, indeed, a charming person and he is also likely to be considered an 'authoritative source' in light of his co-authorship of the 2004 IPSC rule book.

But I still can't find the rule which obviates the Texas Star (or its clones, etc) from IPSC competition at any level, and until someone can quote that specific rule I am likely to remain obdurant.

Be that as it may, I promised to report on the field triel of the Evil Oregon Star.

I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, and here are three articles which provide videos of the new target array in all of its Evil manifestations:


Evil Oregon Star: Presenting the Evil Oregon Star
http://jerrythegeek.########.com/2007/04/evil-oregon-star-0-presenting-evil.html

(Stage walkthrough, and how to reset the Evil Star)


Evil Oregon Star 1: Geek's Bane
http://jerrythegeek.########.com/2007/04/evil-oregon-star-1-geeks-bane.html

(Jerry the Geek shooting The Whole Stage ... what's so Evil about this?)


Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
http://jerrythegeek.########.com/2007/04/evil-oregon-star-2-movie.html

(Ten shooters in one squad shooting only the Evil Star portion of the stage)

And of course, the article which started it all *(and which has so far received over 1,000 individual 'hits'):

Evil Bill's Oregon Star
http://jerrythegeek.########.com/2007/04/evil-bills-oregon-star.html

The associated articles provide ample description of the action, you can decide for yourselves whether there's anything which would cause problems in a match at any level.

The answer is, yes. The design is imperfect. But the concept is viable.

The original designer of the target array watched several squads shooting the target, identified the problems, and already has a improved ("Version 2.0) design ready awaiting only what seem to be minor engineering improvements.

These are not major changes, they consist in only replacing the facing on the arms which support the plates, so bullet fragments don't splatter on the background cardboard targets; and moving the background cardboard target frames one foot toward the rear to better avoid impingement by the falling plates.

To paraphrase someone who has already here commented on this design: 'we've advanced firearms design; now we can advance target design.'

(Sorry, I'm unable to find the original quote although I think it's an important concept.)
 
Freedom Ventures said:
Actually, all of them. :( (Expect to see it in the next "update")
You just get TOLD you can't use them at L3+
Click to expand...

Clarification would be nice...;)

I wouldn't bother trying to get one approved for a Level 3...but we did sanction a Level 2 last year that had one.

The conclusion of the santioning committee (and IPSC Ontario) is that...the parts you shoot at meet all the requirements for a legal target (falling plate)...the rest is just a target stand.

It's no different than Clamshells that slow down or speed up in the wind...or the rotating "propeller" arrays of paper targets that we saw lots of last year. Well maybe a bit different...the star doesn't get effected as much by the weather...(wind, rain...etc)

We'll certainly abide by the official ruling (if we ever get one) but to me it's just standing in the way of inovative stage design. :(
 
What is the basis for banning the star? Is it unsafe? Does it harm shooters self esteem. (Destroyed Mine)Seriously what is the problem? Or is somebody just does not like it?
 
ENSHOOTER said:
What is the basis for banning the star? Is it unsafe? Does it harm shooters self esteem. (Destroyed Mine)Seriously what is the problem? Or is somebody just does not like it?
Click to expand...
something to do with carnival target.... I could be wrong.... heck I'm wrong most of the time..... But I keep trying
 
Carnival target? ... Yeah I read that but still don't get it. According to everything I have read. If this sport was based on real gun fights it would be over in fewer than 5 rds no reload. If based on military training it would be 1 mag per target. If where training for police college it would be PPC. If it were about accuracy it would be Bullseye. The idea is it is to be fun and give an equal opertunity to everyone. Level of difficulty very high in this case but such is life. Maybe I am just grumpy but I really don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom